Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Gajanan Tejrao Deshmukh, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 1/7/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, in exercise of revisional power under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The Additional Commissioner allowed the revision filed by respondent nos. 6 to 10 and set aside the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Additional Collector. The High Court perused the impugned order and found that in the penultimate paragraph, the Additional Commissioner recorded that certain facts had not been considered, namely, that the petitioners before him (respondent nos. 6 to 10) had ancestral rights over the well, easementary rights, a civil court order in their favour, and sale deeds of 1956. However, the Additional Commissioner did not consider these facts himself and passed the order without notice to the petitioner. The High Court held that the Additional Commissioner failed to consider relevant material and violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Additional Commissioner for fresh consideration after hearing all parties. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Revenue - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 257 Maharashtra Land Revenue Code - Natural Justice - The Additional Commissioner set aside orders of lower authorities without considering relevant facts such as ancestral rights, easementary rights, civil court orders, and sale deeds, and without notice to the petitioner - Held that the revisional authority must consider all relevant material and comply with principles of natural justice (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Commissioner, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, can pass an order without considering relevant facts and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected party.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 1/7/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Additional Commissioner for fresh consideration after hearing all parties. The petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Revisional jurisdiction
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code Section 257
- Consideration of relevant material
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (07) 102
Writ Petition No. 3437 of 2011
Shri R.N. Ghuge for petitioner, Shri A.D. Sonak for respondent nos. 1 to 3, Shri C.A. Babrekar for respondent no.7
Gajanan s/o Tejrao Deshmukh
The Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati & Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the revisional order passed by the Additional Commissioner under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 1/7/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati.
Filing Reason
The Additional Commissioner allowed the revision filed by respondent nos. 6 to 10 and set aside the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer and Additional Collector without considering relevant facts and without notice to the petitioner.
Previous Decisions
The Sub-Divisional Officer and Additional Collector had passed orders in favour of the petitioner, which were set aside by the Additional Commissioner.
Issues
Whether the Additional Commissioner failed to consider relevant facts while exercising revisional jurisdiction?
Whether the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Additional Commissioner did not consider relevant facts such as ancestral rights, easementary rights, civil court orders, and sale deeds.
The petitioner contended that the order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing.
Ratio Decidendi
A revisional authority under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code must consider all relevant facts and comply with principles of natural justice before passing an order. Failure to do so renders the order liable to be set aside.
Judgment Excerpts
Perusal of the impugned order discloses that in the penultimate paragraph of the said order, the Additional Commissioner has recorded that certain facts have not been considered, namely, that the petitioners before him, i.e. respondent nos. 6 to 10 herein were having ancestral right over the well as also easementary rights; that the civil Court's order is in favour of the said petitioners and that the Sale Deeds of the years 1956...
The Additional Commissioner has not considered the said facts and has passed the impugned order without notice to the petitioner.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order dated 1/7/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, which allowed the revision filed by respondent nos. 6 to 10 and set aside the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer and Additional Collector.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code: Section 257
